Forum:First Chamber
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Category:ForumCategory:Congress The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of the Lovian Congress, the federal legislative branch. Unlike in other nations, the lower chamber serves as a room for debating and compromising, and the higher Second Chamber is where Members of the Congress vote bills that have passed through the First Chamber. All inhabitants are allowed entry to the Congress, though only Members of the Congress have the right to actively participate. Older proposals 006. State Elections According to the latest reform: * During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor. * During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident. Because the majority of the Lovians prefers October as election month, and a minority wants September, we could do it like this: * 20th September - 3rd October: Candidacies * 4th October - 17th October: Elections * 18th October: Inauguration of the Governors and Deputy Governors I'll ask Congress to vote on this proposal. But we also need to solve two more things before the candidacy period: # we need to settle the number of residences each citizen has. We need to count them and make sure nobody has more than legally allowed. # we need to register these residences in the "citizen book" so we know who can be a candidate in which state and who can vote in which state. This is very important. Martha Van Ghent 08:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :PRO!! You work very hard martha, i like that! Jon THE DUDE Johnson 09:05, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks :) Martha Van Ghent 09:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Support!!! --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::Very good. Your swift action as an MOTC is appreciated! 13:00, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::You have my support just as well. -- 14:21, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::For Martha's current bills all get s! Marcus Villanova WLP 16:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Got my support. 06:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Citizen residences count If we want this huge work to get done, we better start now. I'll list up all citizens and their residences. When I find citizens with more residences than allowed, I'll send a message to him. I will propose a bill to Congress to change the legal number of residence. I hope to do this before the counting really starts and all that. Please react fast. Martha Van Ghent 12:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC) 007. Amendment (Art.2): less legal residences Currently: * inhabitants have 1 residence * citizens can have 2 residences * MOTCs can have 3 * the King and the PM can have 4 This reflects a strange sort of hierarchy, and I don't like that. So this is what I propose: * inhabitants may have 1 residence in Lovia * citizens may have maximum 3 residences in Lovia There would be no difference between the King, the PM, the MOTCs or the citizens. In law, this would result in this Article 2 of the Const.: :Art. 2 :2. Every Lovian citizen has the right: ::1. To have a number of residences in Lovia, but no more than three. ::2. To participate in federal and state politics and to be a candidate in any Lovian election, unless he or she does not meet the requirements. Art. 2.3 and 2.4 are deleted then. Martha Van Ghent 12:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC) Comments Very good . I'd been planning to do this myself too, but you know... forgot about it, I suppose. I suggest you better move it to the 2nd Chamber fast then. 12:59, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :Yes; Martha Van Ghent 13:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::This would be a very good thing. We need to de-establish the hierarchical structures embedded in the law, inherited from our Libertan days. As a matter of fact, we needed this structure to make people want to become a politician. Nowadays in Lovia, we have politicians who want to be politicians for politics' sake. So, we may abandon this artifact. -- 14:24, September 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Walden srtikes again! Again very good martha! Marcus Villanova WLP 16:18, September 1, 2010 (UTC) 008. Census! Okay State Elections are coming up and we couldn't get a census law Passed so I think we extend the power of the Department of TL to count the census every December and August. So I would do the work! No One would have to do anything at all! It would just be me! I don't think this needs a law but just a formal agreement since I'm appointed. Thank You. Marcus Villanova WLP 23:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC) :Hey Marcus, check proposal 006., I already proposed to count all citizen residences, in order to know who can vote where. So, we just have to get the 007. bill passed and then we'll count in a hurry. Martha Van Ghent 05:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::True. 08:24, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Okay. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC) 009. Full authority I noticed a possible future problem concerning the disappearing state level and the federal level. We are just in a beginning phase of constitutional evolution, and future authority problems might show up in cases which haven't been fully 'donated' to the congress by the law or constitution, so here is what i propose: # The state governors have full authority on state matters unless the competence has been given to congress by the constitution or the federal law. It's only a small phrase, but it might solve future problems. This might include that some states will hunt to find undistributed powers and competences so here's what I suggest concerning this accessory problem: # The competences which are appropriated by the states and the decisions which could be made due to this appropriation can be rolled back by the congress. ## Congress has to vote on these matters and can only roll back decisions following out of incorrect authority appropriation or subsidiarity. ## When the governor wishes not to agree with the decision of congress, the case has to be judged by the authority court. This court will control whether the congress had the power to destroy the state decision, checking the constitution and the federal law. This will of course mean that a judge court needs to be implemented, but it can be done easily, we can use the same judge of the State Court, or someone who has a greater knowledge of the laws in Lovia. Please read carefully and give comment fast, if this law must pass, it must be done before the state elections. P.S.: @Dimi, I'm very busy at this time, with my 'herexamens' so I'm unable to check where these phrases should be implemented, could you check it please, and if they need to be rewritten could you also do that. JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 11:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :It's an important issue you bring up here Johnson. But in fact, I already built in an "achterdeurtje" (backdoor) in the state reform. Article 5 of the Constitution now includes this phrase: ::"All competencies not covered by the states inhere to the federal level." :Which implies of course, that unless the competencies are explicitly given to the states (e.g. the naming of waterways), all the others belong to Congress. This is by far the most simple solution. It does not require the complex judgment of a Supreme Court Judge. Also, it is the more democratic solution - Congress being a representative institution, more than the Governorship. 14:39, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Correct, but I think that 'my solution' (it's a big word for a small issue :p) could mean a faster evolution of our law and constitution, meaning that we could renew our law every time some state comes up with a new competence of which the governor think's it might be in his hands, also what about competences not for seen in the law? Since everything not being in the law is authorized some smart asses (read Jon) could use that against the country :p JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::I think this is an interesting issue. I must look into this for sure! 16:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::Interesting indeed. Tough to use it against the country, though. BTW: The SC Judge may settle disputes between a state and the federal government. That would solve all abuse. 16:46, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::I think that's what i propose, in case of a problem in which we can't seem to agree, arthie has the power to solve it, if he wants to and if the law get's through of course JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 17:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::I guess the local level has been demolished? I feel more like a converbelt way is better, Local - State - Federal. I'd still like to see a law passed concerning Local Politics like, Every person living in an occupation is a member of that Town's Council, that can make or pass local laws.'' (Simple ones like Speed Limit Etc.) I'm never fond of State Councils Or State Senates but Local Councils gets everyone involved in politics, even if there voting on stupid things like Speed Limit or what to do about the Baer Population in the Town. In this case then the mayor/chairman could veto it...Etc. Also there's no law saying I can't Be Mayor of a town for 59 Years. I just don't have to hold elections and that's that, seems un-democratice right? Well if we have a City Council it Involes Eveyone and then they can decide term limits and how long a term is. Otherwise I don't mind this bill all too much but will probaly vote Absent. Marcus Villanova WLP 19:02, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I think you are missing the point, the state level still exists, where the local level doesn't. The state level will now revive, hence the elections, so problems can arise when a governor wishes to change something on the state level, but has to ask permission to people who aren't aware of the situation. If this decision is against the law or the subsidiary-beginning the congress is given the power to roll back. This is necessary for an evolution of or constitution and our law. JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 20:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::That totally sucks, doesn't it? I don't think you found the point of my rebuddle, which is to keep the Local Level, strong and Local so that it doesn't get much power. Now the state Level is too strong!? As I said the people involed with local politics would stay local. Again I vote Absent on this!Marcus Villanova WLP 20:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC) You still don't get it i think, but never mind, a last try: Local level doesn't exist and that needs to stay so (i know it exists but it has no power, it's more of an honor actually). The state level however exists, and since a short time this level is starting to disappear, trying to unite power on top. In October state elections will be held, so the state level will become more and more attractive and popular. The current laws give all power to the congress (read: power on unmentioned competences). Now i think that this needs to be changed, i want to give all unmentioned competences to the state, this way this level can mean an evolution to the state. Because sometimes laws (or something smaller, something like a state regulation) can really boost a state, now this can cause problems like taking competences that harm the state, here congress can vote to roll back. it's been well taught over! I hope you see what i mean we need your vote. JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 22:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :The influence of Belgian political methods seems to stretch far these days: they can't compose a government in the Netherlands, Lovia keeps state reforming, ... Serious now: I prefer a strong, centralized state that is democratic and transparent. In Lovia we do however hold a certain 'inheritance' with our states and local levels. Those two lower levels have become combined in the last reform, which means the states are as local as actual policy gets. It is on that level we need to 'get people involved'. Isn't that what both of you say? 11:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I think so, is that a pro or a contra? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 13:55, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::@Jon - Oh well yeah i kinda knew that it doesn't exist but, I love local politics. Sorry for the confusion. I'm still thinking over the bill that was proposed. Marcus Villanova WLP 15:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::I tend to support it. It may need some rewriting but it gives more liberty to regional communities. In a way it can make the states become local politics, or is it the other way round? Harold Freeman 15:18, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Honestly, It raises State power to about where state level should be at. And Totaly demolishes Local politics. Marcus Villanova WLP 15:26, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::It doesn't demolish the local level, with or without this law the local level doesn't exist, and i can't change that, but this law brings politics to the people, like harold says, this could be seen as the new local level, thanks harold JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:46, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::Still. I want a local level, it occurs to me that our argument really doesn't matter. I will Vote on this bill! But again letting people know, anyway I still think we should have an active Local level, like I said it gets everyone involved! Marcus Villanova WLP 15:52, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Thanks man, maybe we ougt to write local politics together, something that allows the local politics, in a way that doesn't make things complex, what do you think? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:59, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I support this bill too. Local levels could be organized by making community pressure groups like 'people united for a Noble City forest'. Harold Freeman 15:58, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::There is already that like HEMPPAC, NPP, LMFPAC I mean like an orginized local government. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:03, September 4, 2010 (UTC) Practically impossible It's practically impossible, Jon. Take taxes, as an example: there are no federal taxes. So, according to you, a Governor could tax anything he wants. That's no big deal is it? But he could tax products from other states. Tax differences would cause companies to move around; states to lose income; people to lose jobs. Which fucked-up socialist comes up with an idea like that? Holy ----! Centralize, please! This is getting way too Belgian. 16:04, September 4, 2010 (UTC) : Agreed, we were writing some stuff in, I think Jon's sandpit and Percival's sidepages. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:07, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::You mean like cold civil war? Harold Freeman 16:08, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Exactly. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:09, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::It was of course just an example. Every hole in the law would become a chance for five different governors to do as they like, without the consultation of the people. A judge can settle differences? Fine. Arthur, you better get working. Where did the "simplify" go? This is making Lovia '''less democratic and less transparant'. If you want the people to get in touch with politics and law, we must make it simple and not obscure! 16:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::No need to shout my friend: who raises his voice over the clouds wont be able to see it anymore. I understand the point you are making here, it is a good point.Harold Freeman 16:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::I simply agree, I think that Govenors should decide taxes, but since we don't have local state ppolitics things could go undemocratic. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:20, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::We have thought about democratic state level. Problem is we don't have the politicians. With only ten to fifteen active citizens, we cannot fill five+one parliaments. That's why we decided to make the state level the new "local level", giving them town and city powers. The actual state powers, that required a democratic approach, were given Congress. 16:23, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::A good proposal is one that is talked about so this one qualifies. I must however admit the kings sounds like he knows. Harold Freeman 16:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Maybe Five Members per state? I mean that could work right? That wouldn't be as active as Congress so it would be okay? Right? Marcus Villanova WLP 16:29, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Marcus: we only have 15 active editors. Therefore, some people would be in several assemblies. Then why not just assemble together, as we do now? 16:32, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I'm gonna look at every town and city to see, it might take 10 - 15 mins. Marcus Villanova WLP 16:42, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Thanks king for your shouting here, but hey, i don't like it this way neither, we are in a stadium of complete paralyze, states can't move, everything has to be seen by a congress that mostly doesn't decide on such things, Marcus tried to implement a census, something witch could be a perfect state competence, but whatever Marcus tried, nobody was listening or helping (I know that encapsulates me too) but I really think we have two options here, or we quit installing the state elections (due to hallow level, because what are the city and town right?) Or we should start thinking to implement a legal way of introducing the states without starting a secession war! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 18:38, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Wait what are you taking about State Secession? I don't that's gonna happen right? Marcus Villanova WLP 18:44, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Of course not, but the king is afraid, that my solution would be a way to do so, or at least a way to use the law against the country JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 18:50, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::I don't see that happening. Marcus Villanova WLP 18:51, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::Me neither JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 19:03, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::The king is aware that a system like the one you propose will complicate several mechanisms, and will not solve problems that cannot be solved now. 15:26, September 5, 2010 (UTC) 010/11/12. The Civil Law on family matters I have a series of three proposals that I would like to ad to the Federal Law. There is one on marriage and divorce, one on legal cohabiting and one on parenthood. To make things not too difficult I will only write a short description here, the full texts can be found here. * Marriage Act: A law concerning the duties of married people, the conditions and procedure to marry and the provisions to terminate a marriage. * Legal Cohabiting Act: A law that makes it possible to live together without being married. * Parenthood Act: Determining the relationship between child and parents. I know this isn't a priority but it would be nice to have married Lovians etc. Please comment. 09:07, September 5, 2010 (UTC) : Yes I love it! As I wrote in your sandpit. It makes Lovia a real country, with real laws and such. Marcus Villanova WLP 14:17, September 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Is it okay if I check 'em Wednesday? I'm sorta occupied until then. 15:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC) :::It's a pretty good bill that makes us a real country! Marcus Villanova WLP 15:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yuri is really good at this . I think we can be happy with such a good PM. 15:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::I'm looking into social security and criminal law for the moment but it might require some rearranging within the Federal Law. 05:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I have some problems with the second proposal. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:25, September 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Only the second? Then I did a great job. 09:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Ha, good! Marcus Villanova WLP 14:26, September 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Lol! 15:50, September 7, 2010 (UTC) 013. Newport = a what? We voted a bill on the recognition of existing localities. Newport has never been a full neighborhood, but does have a page, a map and even an inhabitant (Marcus). Could we perhaps make it a Hurbanova hamlet? Seems like the best solution to me. 17:04, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :The town was already there and looked small and in touch with nature. IDK why it's a niegboorhood it should be a hamlet of Hurbanova tho. Marcus Villanova Walden 17:05, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes indeed. 17:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC) Proposal to recognize Newport as a HU hamlet Please comment. It's rather urgent! This has to go to 2nd Chamber in a hurry. 17:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC)